Glasgow v. PAR MINERALS CORP.
70 So. 3d 765
La.2011Background
- Glasgow was injured in a work-related fire at an oil well site on September 27, 2007.
- Glasgow’s direct employer was Therral Story Well Service (TSWS).
- PAR Minerals contracted with TSWS to drill the well; PAR also contracted with Pipe Services Unlimited, Inc. to complete the well.
- Glasgow sued PAR Minerals and its insurer within the one-year prescriptive period (Sept 4, 2008).
- After discovery, Pipe Services was later added (May 4, 2009) as a defendant.
- PAR Minerals moved for summary judgment arguing it was Glasgow’s statutory employer and immune from tort liability.
- The district court dismissed PAR Minerals; Pipe Services then argued prescription barred Glasgow’s claim against it.
- The court of appeal affirmed the district court; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to address interruption of prescription.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a timely tort suit against a statutory employer interrupts prescription against a later-added third party | Glasgow argues interruption applies to all solidary obligors. | PAR Minerals’ immunity means no solidary liability; interruption does not reach Pipe Services. | Yes; timely suit interrupts against the solidary obligor and, via solidary liability, also interrupts against Pipe Services. |
| Whether PAR Minerals and Pipe Services are solidary obligors for prescription purposes | Solidary liability exists because obligations to damages overlap (workers’ comp and tort). | No solidary liability if one is immune from tort liability. | Yes; solidary liability exists regardless of liability source; interruption extends to Pipe Services. |
| Whether the interruption principle applies under a civilian methodology treating solidary obligations as coextensive | Civilian approach supports interruption given coextensive obligations. | ecclesial constraints or traditional distinctions undermine interruption. | Yes; civilian methodology supports interruption and upholds Williams/Narcise principles. |
| Impact of Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. on this case | Williams supports interruption when there is a solidary obligation and timely suit. | Williams is not controlling due to changes in workers’ compensation forums and facts. | Reaffirmed; Williams/Narcise principles apply and are codified to sustain interruption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So.2d 1383 (La. 1993) (solidary liability can interrupt prescription for subsequent tort claims)
- Narcise v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 427 So.2d 1192 (La. 1983) (source of liability immaterial for solidarity; obligations may be solidary from different sources)
- Hoefly v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La. 1982) (defines solidary liability criteria for overlapping obligations)
- Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624 (La. 1992) (provides theories of interruption, suspension, renunciation of prescription)
- Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. & Development, 809 So.2d 947 (La. 2002) (illustrates interruption concepts; timely suit against one defendant may not interrupt against others not liable)
- McDaniels v. Allison, 708 So.2d 418 (La. 1998) (illustrates prescription interruption principles among solidary obligors)